Florida Atlantic University Lab Schools 2017-2018adhus.fau.edu/documents/fau-lab-schools... · Florida Atlantic University Lab Schools 2017-2018 FAU Lab Schools Superintendent, Dr

0

Florida Atlantic University Lab Schools

2017-2018

FAU Lab Schools

Superintendent, Dr. Joel D. Herbst

Contact: Gracie Diaz

A.D. Henderson University School /

FAU High School

[email protected]

FAU Lab Schools Instructional Evaluation System

Rule 6A-5.030 Form IEST-2016 Effective Date: August 4, 2017

1

Table of Contents

1. Performance of Students

2. Instructional Practice

3. Other Indicators of Performance

4. Summative Evaluation Score

5. Additional Requirements

6. District Evaluation Procedures

7. District Self-Monitoring

**Modifications to an approved evaluation system may be made by the district at any

time. A revised evaluation system shall be submitted for approval, in accordance with

Rule 6A-5.030(3), F.A.C. The entire template shall be sent for the approval process.

2

1. Performance of Students

The purpose of Florida Atlantic University Lab Schools’ Performance Evaluation System is to

increase student academic performance by improving the quality of instructional, administrative,

and supervisory service (1012.34 (1)(a), F.S. Accordingly, Florida Atlantic University (FAU) Lab

Schools is committed to a cycle of continuous improvement to ensure the instructional evaluation

system reflects state-approved models, emerging best practices, and legislative and policy changes.

FAU Lab Schools’ system is based on the Marzano Causal Evaluation System, Florida Department

of Education approved evaluation model. At the beginning of the 2017-2018 school year, teachers

were provided the opportunity to share input and suggestions during grade level discussions and

faculty presentations and meetings about the evaluation model and procedures. Grade level team

leaders and the UFF teacher representative also met with administration and provided input and

suggestions. The evaluation procedures were redesigned using input by all grade levels and

teachers. As a result of the extensive input, the instructional evaluation had several enhancements

for 2017-2018:

Instructional Practice weight changed from 49% to 64% of Final Evaluation score

Student Growth Measure changed from 50% to 35% of Final Evaluation score

Growth Plan continues to be 1% of Final Evaluation score

Eliminates the State Value-Added Model

Mitigates proficiency model which lacks a baseline assessment to determine growth,

provides only minimum expectations for student performance, and does not account for

highest and lowest student performance levels

Includes use of learning gains and growth models in a majority of the subjects and grades in

order to provide teachers with targets that are more attainable and to account for varying

student levels

Aligns the performance measures among all grades and subjects

Increases student growth commensurate with our students’ abilities and expectations

All instructional employee’s annual evaluations will consist of three parts: 35% Student

Performance Score, 64% Instructional Practice Score and 1% Deliberate Practice (Professional

Growth Plan). For all instructional employees, these parts will be weighted as indicated and will

be combined to designate an overall performance rating.

In 2017-2018, the State’s Value-Added Model (VAM) has been replaced with learning gains and

growth models, where applicable. Whenever possible, the district calculations will parallel state

rules, policies and procedures for determining student achievement results in the student growth

calculation. All instructional personnel (including new teacher hires) will include student

performance data.

For classroom teachers (throughout this document the term “teachers” excludes substitutes),

assessment alignments in Table 1 will be used to determine the Student Performance component.

This component will count for 35% of the teacher’s overall evaluation score. Table 1 also serves

as a tool for organizing and weighting student achievement scores for teachers with multiple

3

classes/courses. The weighting will be reflective on the percentage of students in each course in

relationship to the total number of students assigned to the teacher. Student results used in

evaluation of instructional personnel are based on students assigned to the teacher being evaluated.

Table 1 also reflects the unique design of FAU Lab Schools’ high school program. FAU Lab

Schools has a traditional K-8 program with an accelerated high school component. Students in the

ninth grade participate in accelerated coursework and are fully dual-enrolled at Florida Atlantic

University for grades 10-12. Students return to the high school campus to take required

assessments for graduation and may meet other EOC assessment requirements through dual

enrollment coursework as noted on Table 1.

Annual evaluations of instructional personnel who are not classroom teachers will include student

growth from statewide assessments for students assigned to the instructional personnel. This

measure will count for 35% of the overall evaluation score.

For all instructional personnel, the student growth calculation will include three years of student

data, including the current year and the two years immediately preceding the current year. If less

than the three most recent years of data are available, those years for which data are available will

be used.

Table 1: Student Performance Measures

Student Performance Measure:

All instructional personnel will include student performance data for at least three years, including

the current year and the two years immediately preceding the current year, when available. If less

than the three most recent years of data are available, those years for which data are available

must be used.

Teaching

Assignment/Grade(s)

Performance Measure(s) for

Evaluation Purposes

Percentage Associated

with Final Summative

Evaluation

Kindergarten (K) STAR Reading Assessment 35%

First Grade (1) STAR Reading and Math

Assessments

35%

Second Grade (2) STAR Reading and Math

Assessments

35%

Third Grade (3)

Growth measured from end of

year 2nd grade STAR Reading and

Math scores to 3rd grade FSA

ELA and Math combined

35%

Fourth Grade (4)

Percentage of Learning Gains for

assigned students on ELA and

Math assessments combined

35%

4

Fifth Grade (5)


assigned students on ELA and

Math assessments combined

35%

M/J Math Courses (6-8)


assigned students on FSA Math

assessment

35%

Science (8)

Percent proficient for assigned

students on the FCAT Science 8th

Grade assessment.

35%

English/Language

Arts/Reading Courses (6-8)


assigned students on FSA ELA

assessment

35%

Civics Civics EOC

35%

English 1



assessment

35%

English 2



assessment

35%

English 3 Dual Enrollment at FAU and

taught by FAU Faculty

N/A

English 4 Dual Enrollment at FAU and


N/A

Algebra 1; Algebra 1

Honors; Algebra 1B


assigned students on Algebra 1

EOC

35%

Geometry; Geometry

Honors


assigned students on Geometry

EOC

35%

Biology 1; Biology 1

Honors Biology EOC

35%

HS Science (Chemistry,

Physics, etc.)

Dual Enrollment at FAU and


N/A

United States History Dual Enrollment at FAU and


N/A

Other Classroom Teachers

(K-9), including physical

education, M/J science (6-

7), M/J social studies (6-8),

World History,

Psychology, all electives

and specials, foreign

languages, and ESE

support facilitators


a teacher’s assigned students on

the FSA ELA and Math

assessments combined.

35%

5

Other Non-classroom

instructional personnel

(school counselors, reading

coach, ESE specialist, and

instructional facilitators)

Percentage of learning gains for

all students on the FSA ELA and

Math assessments combined.

35%

District Non-Classroom

Instructional Personnel

Percentage of learning gains for

all students on the FSA ELA and

Math assessments combined.

35%

2017-2018 Business Rules for Determining a Student Performance Score

▪ FAU Lab Schools has an instructional evaluation system that weights student performance

as 35% of the summative evaluation calculation.

▪ Teachers must have at least ten (10) students to count in any grade/model. If less than 10

students, the school score will be used.

▪ If a teacher has core and elective classes, only the students in their core classes will be

factored into the calculation. Students in the electives will not count unless the teacher is

assigned a majority of elective courses.

▪ A Survey 2 and 3 match for grades (K-8) will be used to ensure only the student results

used for a teacher’s student performance calculation have been with a teacher during both

survey periods. Due to the block schedule, students assigned to a high school teacher

during Survey 2 or Survey 3 will be used for their student performance calculation.

▪ For the models using learning gains, the FDOE methodology defined in s. 1008.34 F. S.

and Rule 6A-1.09981 will be used.

Table 2: Student Performance Ratings Score Conversion

Grade K

STAR Early Literacy Assessment

Student Performance Scoring Rubric

Performance Rating Point Value

≥ 79% with at least 100 Scale Score point

increase or Post Scale Score of at least

850 Highly Effective 4

70-78.9% with at least 100 Scale Score

point increase or Post Scale Score of at

least 850 Effective 3

51-69.9% with at least 100 Scale Score

point increase or Post Scale Score of at

least 850

Needs

Improvement/Developing 2

6

< 51% with at least 100 Scale Score point

increase or Post Scale Score of at least

850 Unsatisfactory 1

Grade 1

(STAR Reading and Math)



≥ 79% with at least one year’s growth or

end-of-year GE of a minimum of 2.5 with

a positive gain from the beginning of the

school year

Highly Effective 4

70-78.9% with at least one year’s growth

or end-of-year GE of a minimum of 2.5

with a positive gain from the beginning of

the school year

Effective 3




the school year

Needs


< 51% with at least one year’s growth or



school year

Unsatisfactory 1

For 1st Grade, one year’s growth is defined as a Grade Equivalent (GE) Score increase of +1.0

or End-of-year GE Score of 2.5 or higher with a positive gain from beginning of year GE

Score

Grade 2

(STAR Reading and Math)



7

≥ 79% with at least one year’s growth or



school year

Highly Effective 4




the school year

Effective 3




the school year

Needs


< 51% with at least one year’s growth or



school year

Unsatisfactory 1

For 2nd Grade, one year’s growth is defined as a Grade Equivalent (GE) Score increase of +1.0

or End-of-year GE Score of 3.5 or higher with a positive gain from beginning of year GE Score

Grade 3

(Growth Model from STAR to FSA)



Overall growth rate of ≥ 79% Highly Effective 4

Overall growth rate is 70-78.9% Effective 3

Overall growth rate is 51-69.9% Needs


Overall growth rate is < 51% Unsatisfactory 1

For 3rd Grade, one year’s growth is defined as an increase in “achievement level” or the

maintaining of achievement levels 3, 4, or 5 from 2nd grade end of year STAR Scale Scores to

FSA Scale Scores.

Grades 4 and 5 Performance Rating Point Value

8

(FSA ELA and Math Learning Gains)


Overall learning gains of ≥ 79% Highly Effective 4

Overall learning gains of 70-78.9% Effective 3

Overall learning gains of 51-69.9% Needs


Overall learning gains of < 51% Unsatisfactory 1

Grades 6-10

(Language Arts/Reading)

FSA ELA








Grades 6-9

(Math, Algebra I & Geometry)

FSA Math








9

Civics (Grade 7) and Biology (Grade 9)

End Of Course Assessments


≥ 79% Students score Level 4 and above

Highly Effective 4

70-78% Students score Level 4 or above Effective 3

51-69.9% Students score Level 4 or above Needs

Improvement/Developing

2

< 51% Students score Level 4 and above Unsatisfactory 1

Science (Grade 8)

FCAT 8th Grade Science


Overall proficiency rate of ≥ 79%

Highly Effective 4

Overall proficiency rate of 70-78% Effective 3

Overall proficiency rate of 51-69.9% Needs

Improvement/Developing

2

Overall proficiency rate of < 51% Unsatisfactory 1

All Other Classroom Instructional Staff




Overall learning gains of ≥ 79% for

assigned students on the FSA ELA and

Math combined. Highly Effective 4

Overall learning gains of 70-78.9% for


Math combined. Effective 3

Overall learning gains of 51-69.9% for


Math combined.

Needs


Overall learning gains of < 51% for


Math combined.

Unsatisfactory 1

10

All Non-Classroom/District

Instructional Staff




Overall learning gains of ≥ 79% for all

students on the FSA ELA and Math

combined. Highly Effective 4

Overall learning gains of 70-78.9% for all


combined. Effective 3

Overall learning gains of 51-69.9% for all


combined.

Needs


Overall learning gains of < 51% for all


combined.

Unsatisfactory 1

2. Instructional Practice

The primary purpose of the FAU Lab Schools’ performance-feedback process is to provide a sound

basis for teacher improvement and professional growth that will increase student learning. This is

accomplished through an evaluation of teacher effectiveness and subsequent discussions between

the teacher and a supervisor or other observers. The process assumes the competence of teachers

and focuses on professional development in the context of student performance gains first, while

documenting competency on an annual basis. The entire model for teacher evaluations is based

around the Marzano Causal Teacher Evaluation Model common language of instruction.

At the core of the professional development continuum are three key elements. One is the belief

that, at all levels, the professional educator is engaged in a process of continuous improvement

through deliberate practice seeking to provide better learning for current and future students. The

nature of the improvement experiences will vary, but they include self-reflection, feedback on

performance from peers, parents and administrators, improvement in student performance,

professional development activities, and participation in school improvement efforts. The purpose

of any performance appraisal process must be the support of continuous professional growth.

Another critical key element is a focus on improvement in student performance. Teacher

expectations, their ability to motivate students, the quality of instruction, and the monitoring of

student growth of important academic and social outcomes are critical factors in student learning.

Helping students learn essential skills and content, and develop the ability to continue learning

throughout their lives, is the core of educator professional development.

11

The third key element includes the Florida Educator Accomplished Practices (FEAPs) revised

December 2010 and adopted by the State Board of Education. These standards and expectations

along with the locally developed sample key indicators provide high expectations for all

professionals based upon the study of effective teachers in Florida and the research on effective

teaching practices. With the use of accomplished practices, the goal of teacher evaluation shifts

from minimum competencies to demonstrating highly effective instructional practices as the best

ways for teachers to impact student learning.

I. Core of Effective Practices

FAU Lab Schools has a comprehensive performance evaluation system for all instructional

personnel serves multiple functions and is designed to accomplish the following:

establish the practices and expectations of the position or profession that are based on

research and linked to student outcomes;

evaluate individual performance relative to expectations by assessing the quality and

effectiveness of the services;

provide feedback to the professional that recognizes effective performance, identifies

areas for improvement, and directs professional growth activities; and

provide support to supervisees and practitioners not meeting performance expectations.

The FAU Lab Schools’ Performance Evaluation System is grounded in the work of Dr. Robert

Marzano and is aligned with the Florida Educator Accomplished Practices (FEAPs – revised

12/17/2010). The observation instruments and documentation tools included in the iObservation

System (Learning Sciences International) and referenced in subsequent sections of this plan will be

used by all parties performing observations of instructional personnel. Evidence and results from

iObservation System will inform the Instructional Practice Score.

The evaluation model includes four domains:

Domain 1: Classroom Strategies and Behaviors

Domain 2: Preparing and Planning

Domain 3: Reflecting on Teaching

Domain 4: Collegiality and Professionalism

The four domains include 60 elements: 41 elements in Domain 1, 8 elements in Domain 2, 5

elements in Domain 3 and 6 elements in Domain 4. The specifics of each domain are listed in

Figure 1. For a detailed discussion of these elements see Effective Supervision: Supporting the Art

and Science of Teaching (Marzano, Frontier, & Livingston, 2011). See Figure 1 for the Marzano

Art and Science of Teaching Framework Learning Map.

All forms are available within the iObservation System and contain the same content as the forms

below:

Domain 1: Classroom Strategies and Behaviors

Long Form, Routine Segments

12

Long Form, Content Segments

Long Form, On the Spot Segments

Domain 2: Planning and Preparing

Long Form

Planning (Pre) Conference Form A

Planning (Pre) Conference Form B

Reflection (Post) Conference Form A


Long Form

Domain 4: Collegiality and Professionalism

Long Form

13

Figure 1: Marzano Art and Science of Teaching Framework Learning Map

14

15

Given that 41 of the 60 elements in the model are from Domain 1, the clear emphasis in the

Marzano model is what occurs in the classroom—the strategies and behaviors teachers use to

enhance student achievement. The emphasis on classroom practice is what differentiates the

Marzano model from other teacher evaluation models. Teacher status and growth can be assessed

in each component of the model in a manner that is consistent with the Florida DOE guidelines.

The Research Base from Which the Model Was Developed

The Marzano Evaluation Model is based on a number of previous published works that include:

What Works in Schools (Marzano, 2003), Classroom Instruction that Works (Marzano, Pickering,

& Pollock, 2001), Classroom Management that Works (Marzano, Pickering, & Marzano, 2003),

Classroom Assessment and Grading that Work (Marzano, 2006), The Art and Science of Teaching

(Marzano, 2007), Effective Supervision: Supporting the Art and Science of Teaching (Marzano,

Frontier, & Livingston, 2011). The research that serves as a basis for each book was generated

from a synthesis research and theory. Therefore the model can be considered an aggregation of the

research on those elements that have traditionally been shown to correlate with student academic

achievement.

Each of the works (cited above) from which the model was developed report substantial research

on the elements they address. For example, The Art and Science of Teaching include over 25 tables

which represent the research on the various elements of Domain 1. These tables detail the findings

from meta-analytic studies and the average effect sizes computed in these studies. In all, over 5,000

studies representing research over the last five decades and from which effect sizes were generated

are represented in the tables. The same can be said for the other titles listed above. As a result, one

can determine that the model was initially based on thousands of studies that span multiple decades

and these studies were chronicled and catalogued in books that have been widely disseminated in

the United States. Specifically, over 2,000,000 copies of the books cited above have been

purchased and disseminated to K-12 educators across the United States.

Below are the links to the contemporary research which support the adoption of the Marzano

model.

1. Research Base and Validation Studies on the Marzano Evaluation Model:

http://www.marzanoevaluation.com/files/Research_Base_and_Validation_Studies_Marzano_E

va luation_Model.pdf

2. Meta‐Analytic Synthesis of Studies on Instructional Strategies:

http://www.marzanoevaluation.com/files/Instructional_Strategies_Report_9_2_09.pdf

3. Contemporary Reference List:

http://www.marzanoevaluation.com/files/Contemporary%20References%202000‐ 2011‐1.pdf

4. FEAPs Crosswalk to Marzano Model:

http://www.marzanoevaluation.com/files/FEAPs_Crosswalk_Marzano.pdf

http://www.marzanoevaluation.com/files/Research_Base_and_Validation_Studies_Marzano_Evaluation_Model.pdf



http://www.marzanoevaluation.com/files/Instructional_Strategies_Report_9_2_09.pdf

http://www.marzanoevaluation.com/files/Contemporary%20References%202000‐%202011‐1.pdf

http://www.marzanoevaluation.com/files/FEAPs_Crosswalk_Marzano.pdf

16

Experimental/Control Studies. Perhaps one of the most unique aspects of the research on this

model is that it has a growing number of experimental/control studies that have been conducted by

practicing teachers on the effectiveness of specific strategies in their classrooms. This is unusual in

the sense that these studies are designed to establish a direct causal link between elements of the

model and student achievement. Studies that use correlation analysis techniques (see next section)

can establish a link between elements of a model and student achievement; however, causality

cannot be easily inferred. Other evaluation models currently used throughout the country only have

correlational data regarding the relationship between system elements and student achievement. To

date over 300 experimental/control studies have been conducted. Those studies involved over

14,000 students, 300 teachers, across 38 schools in 14 districts. The average effect size for

strategies addressed in the studies was .42 with some studies reporting effect sizes of 2.00 and

higher. An average effect size of .42 is associated with a 16 percentile point gain in student

achievement. Stated differently: on the average, when teachers use the classroom strategies and

behaviors in the Marzano Evaluation Model the typical gain in student achievement is 16 percentile

points. However, great gains (i.e., those associated with an effect size of 2.00) can be realized if

specific strategies are used in specific ways.

Correlational Studies. As mentioned above, correlational studies are the most common approach

to examining the validity of an evaluation model. Such studies have been conducted on various

elements of the Marzano Evaluation Model. For example, one such study was recently conducted

in the state of Oklahoma as a part of their examination of elements related to student achievement

in K-12 schools (see What Works in Oklahoma Schools: Phase I Report and What Works in

Oklahoma School: Phase II Report, by Marzano Research Laboratory, 2010 and 2011

respectively). Those studies involved 59 schools, 117 teachers, and over 13,000 K-12 students.

Collectively, these reports indicated positive relationships with various elements of the Marzano

Evaluation Model across the domains. Specific emphasis was placed on Domain 1 in the Phase II

report. Using state mathematics and reading test data, 96% of the 82 correlations (i.e., 41

correlations for mathematics and 41 for reading) were found to be positive with some as high as .40

and greater. A .40 correlation translates to an effect size (i.e., standardized mean difference) of .87

which is associated with a 31 percentile point gain in student achievement. These studies also

aggregated data across the nine design questions in Domain 1. All correlations were positive for

this aggregated data. Seven of those correlations ranged from .33 to .40. These correlations

translate into effect sizes of .70 and higher. High correlations such as these were also reported for

the total number of Domain 1 strategies teachers used in a school. Specifically, the number of

Domain 1 strategies teachers used in school had a .35 correlation with reading proficiency and a

.26 correlation with mathematics proficiency.

Technology Studies. Another unique aspect of the research conducted on the model is effects that

have been examined in the context of technology. For example, a two year study was conducted to

17

determine (in part) the relationship between selected elements from Domain 1 and the effectiveness

of interactive whiteboards in enhancing student achievement (see Final Report: A Second Year

Evaluation Study of Promethean ActivClassroom by Haystead and Marzano, 2010). In all, 131

experimental/control studies were conducted across the spectrum of grade levels. Selected elements

of Domain 1 were correlated with the effect sizes for use of the interactive white boards. All

correlations for Domain 1 elements were positive with some as high as .70. This implies that the

effectiveness of the interactive whiteboards as used in these 131 studies was greatly enhanced by

the use of Domain 1 strategies.

Instructional Practice Scoring

An Instructional Practice score will be computed for all instructional personnel. Florida’s

Evaluation Model, Marzano’s Art and Science of Teaching Framework, will be used. This

Model:

Reflects teachers’ performance across all elements within the framework (Domains 1-4)

Accounts for teachers’ experience levels (Categories A, B, C, and D)

Assigns weight to the domain with greatest impact on student achievement (Domain 1)

Acknowledges teachers’ focus on deliberate practice by measuring teacher

improvement over time on specific elements within the framework

An Instructional Practice score will consist of two elements: an Instructional Status score and a

Deliberate Practice score.

1. Instructional Practice Score (64%)

a. Measures teachers’ proficiency against all 4 domains in the Marzano Model

b. Recognizes teachers’ use of research based strategies in the complete instructional

framework

2. Deliberate Practice Score (1%)

a. Measures progress against specifically targeted elements for improvement

b. Recognizes teacher’s deliberate practice

c. Supports annual growth in teacher practice

d. Informs the development of the Individual Professional Development Plan (IPDP)

For evaluation purposes, teachers are assigned to one of four categories:

Category A: First year of teaching

Category B: Teachers in second or third year of teaching or new to the district

Category C: Experienced teachers with at least 3 years of experience (4th year of

teaching)

Category D: Teachers beyond their 3rd year of teaching and who are identified as a

struggling teacher.

Multiple observations (as reflected in Table 3) provide ongoing feedback to support teachers’

professional growth and gather sufficient evidence to measure effectiveness as teacher’s transition

to the district. Multiple formal observations provide regular opportunities and support for teacher

18

reflection and growth through the planning, observation and reflection conference process.

Domain 1 cannot be documented and measured during one observation session.

Therefore, observers will work with teachers to establish a clear focus for each observation. Design

Questions previously addressed during a formal observation can be revisited at the request of the

teacher or the observer in future observations. In subsequent years, the formal observation schedule

for Category A and B teachers would follow a similar pattern with each observation focusing on

two to three Design Questions identified by the observer and the teacher during the preconference.

Category A. All formal observations of Category A teachers will include a review of data

appropriate to the Design Question(s) focus for that observation. Appropriate data may include but

are not limited to:

Curriculum-based measures

Grade distributions

Mastery checklists

Student work samples

Discipline data

Informal Observations will focus on the Deliberate Practice elements of each teacher as indicated

on the Deliberate Practice Plan (DPP). Feedback for first-year teachers includes pre- and post-

observation conferences for all formal observations as well as other written feedback. In addition,

new teachers are provided feedback from mentor or peer-to-peer observations.

The mid-year evaluation for new teachers as outlined on Table 3 is incorporated as part of the

teacher’s Instructional Practice and Student Growth score. The data points used for the mid-year

evaluation are determined by the principal based on the subject taught, teaching grade level, school

improvement goals and the teacher’s identified goals through their learning plan. The student

growth measure for mid-year evaluation purposes will include an appropriate grade and subject

level pre and post district assessment.

Any observations (formal, informal and walkthroughs) completed by the administration may be

used for evaluation purposes. Administration will be responsible for all formal observations.

Observations (informal and walkthroughs) completed by peers may only be used for formative

purposes. These assessments will guide teacher professional development, formative assessment of

fidelity of curricular and instructional strategies implementation, and mentor-mentee collaboration.

New teachers will participate in the new teacher program, Guiding Accelerated Teacher

Effectiveness (GATE). Through program participation, new teachers will learn to implement

effective strategies in their classrooms based on feedback received by the administrators, peers, and

their mentor. The administrator will meet with the new teacher for a pre-observation conference

before a formal observation and a post-observation conference to discuss results. In addition, the

19

iObservation system will be used to provide the new teacher with immediate and actionable

feedback after all observations.

All teachers will use the observation instruments adopted; new teachers will not use a modified

instrument. However, a modified rating scale is utilized for all Category A teachers. In order to

achieve a rating of Highly Effective, a teacher in Category A must have 65% of evaluation scores

at level 4 and 0% at level 1 or 0. Effective ratings occur if at least 65% are at level 3 or higher. A

developing rating includes less than 65% at level 3 or higher and less than 50% at level 1 or 0.

Unsatisfactory ratings occur if greater than 50% of observed elements are at level 1.0.

Protocols for Classroom Observations and forms identified in iObservation are located in this

section. The forms used for each type of observation can be found within the Marzano

iObservation platform. Teachers prior to an observation can view these forms.

In the event that observations conducted by school personnel other than the employee’s direct

supervisor are used for evaluation purposes, assurances will be made that the observer is well

trained either by Learning Sciences International or by a train-the-trainer model.

The following table outlines the observation schedule for all teachers. The number of

walkthroughs, informal, and formal observations indicate a minimum of observations that will be

conducted.

Table 3: Frequency and Type of Observations

FY 17 Observation Schedules (Category A) Teachers in their first year of teaching with the

District. Time starts on the contract date of their current teaching position.

1 Walkthrough, 1 Informal, and 1 Formal

(paced throughout the year and completed by the last instructional day of May)

Student Growth for mid-year evaluations will be determined by using student achievement

data on district assessments. Where possible, the grade/subject assessments outlined in Table 1

will be utilized for the student growth score.

Mid-Year Evaluation completed by the end of the first semester.

Summative Evaluation (instructional practice by 6/30)

FY 17 Observation Schedules (Category B) Teachers in second or third year of teaching or new to the district.

1 Walkthrough, 1 Informal, 1 Formal (paced throughout the year and completed by the last instructional day of May)


20

FY 17 Observation Schedules (Category C) Teachers with 4 or more years of teaching experience. 1 Walkthrough or 1 Informal and 1 Formal (paced throughout the year and completed by the last instructional day of May)


FY 17 Observation Schedules (Category D) Teachers beyond their 3rd year of teaching and who are identified as a struggling teacher.

1st Semester 2nd Semester

1 Walkthrough completed by the last

instructional day in October

1 Walkthrough, 1 Informal, 1 Formal (paced

throughout the second half of the year and

completed by the last instructional day of

May) 1 Informal & 1 Formal (one by the last

instructional day of October and the other by

mid-December)

Mid-Year Evaluation Summative Evaluation

(instructional practice by 6/30)

Annual Evaluation Ratings and Calculations

The four summative evaluation ratings, as adopted by the State, will be utilized:

Highly Effective (4)

Effective (3)

Needs Improvement or Developing for years 1-3 (2)

Unsatisfactory (1)

The summative rating is composed of 35% Student Performance Measures and 64% from the

Instructional Practice Score and 1% Deliberate Practice (Professional Growth Plan). The final

summative rating is combined with the results of the Student Performance Measures,

Instructional Practice score and the Deliberate Practice (Professional Growth Plan) score.

Observation and Evaluation Procedures:

1. A minimum of one formal observation will be scheduled with the teacher. New teachers will

have a minimum of two formal observations. Prior to the observation, the teacher and the

administrator schedule a pre-observation conference and a post-observation conference.

2. The pre/post conferences and the observation will occur within one week’s time.

3. Additional observations will be conducted in the form of informal observations and

walkthroughs. The observation data will be collected in iObservation to support the evidence

and data collection for the evaluation.

4. New teachers and teachers who have been identified as struggling will have subsequent

formal observations scheduled during the post-observation conference and may be

provided additional support, coaching and/or professional learning.

5. Feedback from informal conferences will be made available to teachers within two

working days of the observation by the observer as well as through the iObservation

System.

6. The iObservation System will calculate a summative evaluation utilizing the scores assigned

21

for the Instructional Practice Score, Deliberate Practice Score and the Student Growth Score.

The supervising administrator will meet with each teacher to review the results.

The rubric(s) and weighting scales/scoring systems defined by the Marzano Model will be used

to define and assign the summative evaluation rating. The 5-level rubric used to rate and provide

feedback to teachers on their use of the 60 elements of the Art and Science of Teaching

Framework are translated through the Calculation and Weighting System to the four rating labels

as defined at the state. These calculation translations, for all teachers in all categories, can be

found on the Learning Science International website within the Florida Model Material section

located at this web address:

http://www.marzanoevaluation.com/members_area/florida_model_materials/#Summative

The administrators at the school level will assign the final rating based on the calculations in

iObservation for each teacher. The rating will reflect the scores from all formal, informal, and/or

walk-through observations conducted by administration. Any observations conducted by peers

will be used for formative purposes, to identify trends, and to identify areas of professional

development needed.

Research Supporting the Marzano Framework

Haystead, M. W. & Marzano, R.J. (2010) Final Report: A Second Year Evaluation Study of

Promethean ActivClassroom. Englewood, CO: Marzano Research Laboratory

(marzanoresearch.com).

Haystead, M. W. & Marzano, R.J. (2010). Meta-Analytic Synthesis of Studies Conducted at

Marzano Research Laboratory on instructional Strategies. Englewood, CO: Marzano

Research Laboratory (marzanoresearch.com).

Marzano, R.J. (2003). What works in schools. Alexandria, VA: ASCD

Marzano, R. J. (2006). Classroom assessment and grading that work. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Marzano, R.J. (2007). The art and science of teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Marzano, R. J., Frontier, T., & Livingston, D. (2011). Effective supervision: Supporting the art

And science of teaching. Alexandria VA: ASCD.

Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works.

Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Marzano, R.J., Marzano, J. S., & Pickering, D. J. (2003). Classroom management that works.

http://www.marzanoevaluation.com/members_area/florida_model_materials/#Summative

22

Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Marzano Research Laboratory. (2010) What Works in Oklahoma Schools: Phase I Report.

Englewood, CO: Marzano Research Laboratory (marzanoresearch.com)

Marzano Research Laboratory. (2011) What Works in Oklahoma Schools: Phase II Report.

Englewood, CO: Marzano Research Laboratory (marzanoresearch.com)

23

3. Other Indicators of Performance

FAU Lab Schools (A.D. Henderson University School/ FAU High School) has incorporated

Deliberate Practice, Collegiality, and Individual Professional Development Planning within the

Instructional Practice Component. Teachers complete their own Individual Professional

Development plan at the beginning of each year. They can have opportunities to include additional

information within iObservation to receive additional credit for their work. At this time, there are no

additional indicators that are used to evaluate teachers.

24

4. Summative Evaluation Score

FAU Lab Schools combines the Student Performance Score and Instructional Practice Score

(including the Deliberate Practice Score) for a final s ummative teacher evaluation score and rating.

Once the Student Performance Score and an Instructional Practice score have been determined, it is

necessary to combine these scores into a final Summative Teacher Evaluation Score and Rating.

The Student Performance Score is weighted at 35%, the Instructional Practice Score is 64% and

the Deliberate Practice Score is 1% of the final Summative Teacher Evaluation Score. However, if

the student growth score is unsatisfactory, the evaluation is deemed unsatisfactory regardless of the

Instructional Practice Score.

The scale score for each rating is below:

Highly Effective Effective Needs Improvement/

Developing

Unsatisfactory

3.5 – 4 2.5 – 3.4 1.5 – 2.4 Below 1.5

Determining the Student Achievement Score

The student achievement score will be calculated as discussed in Section 1 Performance of Students.

Determining the Instructional Practice Score

The scale used by Marzano’s model is a five-point scale consisting of:

Innovating (4)

Applying (3)

Developing (2)

Beginning (1)

Not using (0)

These rating scales will be calculated from observation data collected then translated using the

calculation and weighting System to establish the Instructional Practice Score. The Domains and the

related weighting toward the instructional practice score is as follows:

Domain 1: Classroom Strategies and Behaviors - 68%

Domain 2: Planning and Preparing, Domain 3: Reflecting on Teaching, and Domain 4: Collegiality

and Professionalism -32%

Sources of evidence for each domain may include, but are not limited to, the following in order to

determine an Instructional Practice score using Marzano’s five-point scale:

25

Table 4: Sources of Evidence

Domain 1: Classroom Strategies and

Behaviors


• Formal observation(s)

• Informal, announced observation(s)

• Informal unannounced observations(s)

• Student surveys

• Videos of classroom practice

• Artifacts: Student Work,

Assessments, Unit Plan/Lesson

Plan, Digital Resources

• Planning conference or preconference

• Artifacts: Unit Plans/Lesson Plans,

Curriculum Maps, Student Support

Logs, Family Communication, Digital

Resources

Domain 3: Reflecting on Teaching Domain 4: Collegiality and Professionalism

• Self-assessment

• Post-observation conference

• Teacher Inquiry

• Videos of classroom practice

• Lesson Study

• Learning Walks

• IPDP Reviews/Discussion

• Artifacts

• Conferences

• Parent Surveys

• Student Surveys

• Professional Learning Community

• Evidence of presenting at local, state and

national conferences

• Evidence of serving as intern/pre-intern

clinical educator

• Evidence of participation on school-

based committees and leadership

roles

• Serving as a Professional Learning

Partner

• Advising school clubs/organizations

• Evidence of cultivation of partnerships

with other schools and/or the

university

Amending Evaluations

According to 1012.34 (3)(d), the evaluator may amend an evaluation based upon assessment data from

the current school year if the data becomes available within 90 days after the close of the school year.

The evaluator will comply with the notification procedures set forth. The principal will notify the

employee in person of any changes based on new data. Data to be considered will consist of only those

data approved as student growth measures.

A System of Continuous Improvement

26

The purpose of the Florida Atlantic University Lab School’s redeveloped Performance Evaluation

System is to establish an overall system of continuous improvement focused on increasing student

learning growth by improving the quality of instructional, administrative, and supervisory service

(1012.34 (1)(a), F.S. and MOU (D)(2)(ii)2.

School improvement goals are informed by data based on student learning outcomes and trends in

instructional practice as captured and aggregated in iObservation. These same data are used to measure

teacher effectiveness and inform decisions about classroom practice, staffing, and professional learning

needs. Instructional evaluation results will be used to identify both challenge areas and possible

solutions to be addressed in school/district improvement plans.

This system is based on a cycle of instructional improvement at the teacher, school, and district level.

This cycle, which includes setting goals, teaching students, gathering and sharing data, analyzing those

data, and using information to create future plans, is further illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Cycle of Instructional Improvement

The evaluation system provides feedback to the teacher for individual continuous improvement as

follows:

Teachers are observed for the purposes of collecting data to inform the evaluation.

Data are collected and analyzed and results are used along with students’ assessments to develop

the teacher’s Deliberate Practice Plan.

Teachers are scheduled to meet with the evaluating administrator to review the observation

evidence.

Administrators provide feedback based on data and student performance.

Teachers bring documentation supporting student achievement and professional growth.

Teachers and administrators may agree on professional development needs and opportunities.

FAU Lab Schools currently uses evaluation results to inform individual professional development. The

general timeline for improvements to the process are as follows:

The initial discussion of professional improvement takes place in September or October of the

school year.

27

The principal/assistant principal meets with the teacher and looks at student achievement data.

They review the prior year’s IPDP/DP goals and their success in attaining them. They review

areas of improvement and opportunities for professional development.

The next meeting is the formative evaluation, wherein the principal/assistant principal provides

observation data (for year 1-3 teachers) and/or the formative evaluation data.

At this meeting the principal/assistant principal and teacher discuss the areas of the evaluation,

one of which is professional development. At this time goals for professional improvement are

set. The principal/assistant principal may suggest ways in which the teacher may seek assistance

and documentation that the teacher may bring to the summative evaluation that shows growth.

The final meeting, the summative evaluation discussion, occurs at the end of each school year.

The teacher and the principal/assistant principal meet and evaluate the teacher’s performance

during the school year. At this time the principal/assistant principal will look at student

performance data and other documentation that shows teacher performance and professional

growth.

Total Teacher Evaluation Calculation

The Instructional Practice Score, Deliberate Practice Score and Student Performance Score will be

combined to determine the overall rating and scale score for each teacher’s evaluation. The four

summative evaluation ratings and scale score are listed in the table below.

Rating Scale for Total Combined Value of Evaluation

Rating Highly Effective Effective Needs Improvement Unsatisfactory

Scale Score 3.5 – 4 2.5 – 3.4 1.5 – 2.4 Below 1.5

28

An example of the summative evaluation is provided below.

Example- FAU Lab Schools

Summative Evaluation for Instructional Staff

Mid-Year Summative Evaluation Summative Evaluation

Assessment Procedures Used: Formal Informal Conferences Student Other Observation Observation Data

Score Calculation

Metric 1: Instructional Practice Score Instructional Practice 64%

Domain 1

Domain 2, 3, 4

Metric 2: Deliberate Practice (1 - 4 points possible)

Deliberate Practice (Professional Growth Plan)

1%

Metric 3: Student Performance Score (1 - 4 points possible)

Student Performance Score 35%

Final Summative Score - (IPS x 64%) + (DP x 1%) + (SPM x 35%) =

Administrator Signature Date

Teacher Signature Date

Final Summative Score Category

Highly Effective 3.5 – 4.0

Effective 2.5 – 3.4

Needs Improvement/Developing 1.5 – 2.4

Unsatisfactory Below 1.50

Name_ Position

School/Work Location Date

29

5. Additional Requirements

FAU Lab Schools notifies and instructs teachers to review and verify that their class rosters are

accurate. Teachers are provided with information regarding correction of student data twice a

year. This communication is via e-mail. Additionally, our MIS Coordinator provides support to

any teacher who needs assistance with correcting and interpreting data.

Teachers are also advised of their supervising administrator at the beginning of each school year.

The principal and/or assistant principal will conduct walkthroughs and evaluations. The

evaluator is the administrator who is responsible for supervising the employee. An evaluator may

consider input from other personnel trained in evaluation practices.

Additionally, teachers are provided updated information through Google Docs. They are also

provided with information on the evaluation methodology in their teacher handbook. A copy of

the current Teacher Performance Evaluation System is posted on Google Docs for teachers to

review. Assistant principals reinforce the tenants of the Performance Evaluation System at grade

level meetings. After receiving an observation through the iObservation, teachers have the

opportunity to respond to provide feedback within the system.

FAU Lab Schools will evaluate all instructional personnel and classroom teachers at least once a

year. Classroom teachers newly hired by the district are observed and evaluated at least three

times in the first year of teaching in the district. In the event a teacher is evaluated as less than

effective, FAU Lab Schools will require participation in specific professional development and

support programs.

Evaluator Professional Learning

Learning Sciences International trainers provided initial training prior to the start of the 2011-

2012 school year. The training included the research base behind the Domain 1 elements

outlined by Marzano, the use of the observation forms, conducting objective observations and

“look for” evidence, and use of the technology through the iObservation platform. Participants

learned how to use the protocol, provide meaningful feedback, and to support teachers' growth

through a revised teacher performance evaluation system. Two summer institutes for

administrators and teacher leaders provided more training on the use of the protocols and inter

rater reliability. All administrators received Marzano’s The Art and Science of Teaching and

Effective Supervision. In addition, a common language of instruction has been adopted and well

documented throughout the school year and beyond which include procedures, policies, and

processes of the Teacher Evaluation System.

After the initial training, opportunities for continuous improvement may be provided through the

iObservation platform for practice using the observation forms. Instructional rounds may be

implemented in order to strive toward inter-rater reliability. Embedded within the iObservation

platform are professional development segments, research, and video that will help to further

guide observers as they move toward proficiency in conducting observations.

30

The process for monitoring evaluator performance will include ongoing dialogue and feedback

from stakeholders. The evaluators will collaborate, conduct instructional rounds, review all

observation forms, and check for inter-rater reliability.

The iObservation System facilitates immediate feedback to the teacher. Administrators provide

feedback to teachers within 48 hours in the majority of classroom visits.

Based on the feedback from surveys of teachers, student performance data and classroom

walkthrough data, the professional development team creates targeted staff development for the

following school year. Ongoing staff development is targeted through grade level meetings

based on trends identified through classroom walkthroughs and formal evaluations.

The district has created a cycle of assistance for teachers evaluated as Needs

Improvement/Developing or Unsatisfactory. This cycle of assistance is provided through the

collaborative creation of a Professional Development Plan. This assistance targets the areas

identified as deficient and will provide opportunities for the teacher to improve through various

venues. The supports for the teacher may include mentoring, peer modeling, additional

coursework, attend professional development, and additional monitoring to view improved

instructional strategies. Peer assistance may be provided for staff that change levels, due to

performance deficiencies and identified needs, as part of collegiality.

The district provides a schedule that outlines the required classroom walkthroughs (informal) and

formal evaluations of staff. Table 3 outlines the minimum evaluations based on the number of

years of teaching experience for each teacher. The documentation of these visits are maintained

on iObservation. The guidelines for formal and informal observations for newly hired teachers

are also outlined on Table 2 which meets the minimum outlined in s. 1012.34(3)(a), F.S. [Rule

6A-5.030(2)(f)8., F.A.C.].

6. District Evaluation Procedures

FAU Lab Schools creates and shares with the Superintendent and the leadership the team the

evaluations for all staff. The district reviews the results for trends and deficiencies to provide

support and develop staff training to reduce identified gaps in instructional pedagogy.

Teachers in the district receive a written report within 10 days of a formal observation through

the iObservation System. Additionally, the teacher has the opportunity to provide feedback on

all observations completed in the system, which are a permanent part of their iObservation

record. Teachers have an opportunity to discuss any observation either formal or informal with

an administrator. Administrators meet with teachers for pre and post meetings for formal

observations.

The protocols for unsatisfactory observations include a written notification in the form of a

memorandum. Staff receiving an unsatisfactory observation will conference with the supervising

administrator to discuss deficiencies and develop a Professional Development Plan to assist the

31

staff member. If a teacher receives two end-of-the-year evaluations that are unsatisfactory, the

district will notify both the Department of Education and the Superintendent.

FAU Lab Schools will notify the Department of Education and Superintendent of any

instructional staff member who it intends to terminate or not renew their employment.

31

7. District Self-Monitoring

FAU Lab Schools’ comprehensive performance evaluation system for all instructional

personnel serves multiple functions and is designed to accomplish the following:

Establish the practices and expectations of the position or profession that are based

on research and linked to student outcomes;

Evaluate individual performance relative to expectations by assessing the quality

and effectiveness of the services;

Provide feedback to the professional that recognizes effective performance,

identifies areas for improvement, and directs professional growth activities;

Provide support to supervisees and practitioners not meeting performance expectations

Identify individual professional development; and

Provide evaluation data to inform school and district improvement plans.

A comprehensive review of the implementation of the Teacher Evaluation Process shall be

conducted annually to determine district compliance with Florida law and district policies. The

focus of the review will be on the aspects of the system that support improvements in our

teacher’s instructional planning and delivery, as well as student learning. Evaluation data will be

used to inform school and district improvement plans.

Factors considered in the annual review process may include:

Trends in ratings within each domain

Correlations among Performance of Students data and teacher evaluation scores

Alignment of professional development plans and IPLPs with evaluation results

Appropriate support for professional development across different teacher groups

Measures and scoring systems used for awarding Performance of Students scores

Trends in score ranges

Analysis of inter-rater reliability

Development needs for district assessments

Adherence of the overall system to the research model and original design elements.

Additionally, FAU Lab Schools’ administrative staff and district personnel meet annually to

review the Instructional Evaluation System to determine compliance with the Florida Statute.

FAU Lab Schools’ self-monitoring includes processes to determine the following:

Evaluators’ understanding of the proper use of evaluation criteria and procedures,

including evaluator accuracy and inter-rater reliability.

Evaluators provide necessary and timely feedback to employees being evaluated.

Evaluators follow district policies and procedures in the implementation of evaluation

system(s).

The use of evaluation data to identify individual professional development.

32

The use of evaluation data to inform school and district improvement plans.

The review team analyzes the performance evaluation results from the prior school year for all

instructional personnel using the four levels of performance. The performance evaluation results

for instructional personnel are disaggregated by classroom teacher and all other instructional

personnel; by school site; and by instructional level.

As a result of the annual review, all changes and revisions to the teacher evaluation system will

be recommended. All substantial revisions will be reviewed and approved by the School

Advisory Body before being used to evaluate teachers.

Documents

Florida Atlantic University Lab Schools 2017-2018adhus.fau.edu/documents/fau-lab-schools... · Florida Atlantic University Lab Schools 2017-2018 FAU Lab Schools Superintendent, Dr